Airports

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which airports in the United Kingdom have penalty schemes in operation for (a) noise, and (b) pollution; and
	What penalties are imposed for breaches of the noise and pollution regimes by airports with penalty schemes in operation; and
	How emissions from aircraft are measured at airports; and
	Which airports have facilities for measuring emissions; and
	How much money has been raised at airports which have penalty schemes in respect of (a) noise; (b) emissions; and (c) deviation from planned flight path; and
	To what purposes the money raised from airport penalty schemes has been devoted; and
	Whether (a) all penalty schemes at airports in respect of noise, emissions and deviations from flight paths are administered by airports themselves; and (b) there is any independent oversight of these schemes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There are over 140 licensed aerodromes in the United Kingdom, and the information about their operating policies requested in a number of these questions is not collected or held by the Department for Transport. It is therefore not possible to give comprehensive information about UK airports' policies in response to these questions. However, some illustrative examples of practices at larger UK airports are given at the end of this answer.
	Ambient air quality is monitored in the vicinity of all larger airports in the UK. Continuous monitoring of a number of different pollutants, which are controlled though the UK air quality objectives, is carried out near airports either through the Defra monitoring network, by local authorities or by the airports themselves. The prime pollutants are nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10) though a number of other pollutants are monitored at different locations. Data acquired are used both for compliance monitoring against limit values and in support of modelling of pollutant concentrations. Monitors are sited at various locations that relate either to the main sources or to residential areas.
	Aircraft emissions are not identified separately from other sources in monitoring work though some sites will be exposed to higher levels of aircraft emissions whilst at others it will be roads that predominate. For modelling of airport area emissions, the aircraft source emissions, like other sources, will be calculated using inventory techniques related to technical and operational performance. Inevitably, this will be an approximation given the variation in numerous factors that affect the actual level of emissions for a particular movement.
	Moreover, it is not possible to ascribe a particular operational level of emissions to an individual aircraft. The Civil Aviation Bill does not, therefore, make provision for the establishment of emissions control schemes at airports.
	There are currently no penalty schemes in operation at UK airports for emissions, and no current statutory powers to airport operators to impose such penalties.
	Clause 1 of the Civil Aviation Bill would give airport operators clear powers to fix their charges by reference to aircraft emissions. BAA currently makes a charge, or offers a rebate, dependent upon the ascertained NOx emission of aircraft types using Heathrow and Gatwick airports. Given that some airport operators would like explicit clear powers to make such charges, it is not unexpected that there should be so few charging on this basis.
	Clauses 3 and 4 of the Civil Aviation Bill would give airport operators the power to levy financial penalties on the operators of aircraft which breach noise control requirements set by the Secretary of State (in the case of airports designated for the purposes of Section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982) or the airport operator itself (for other airports). There is no current statutory basis for charging such penalties.
	At present a number of airports impose penalties for breach of their noise limits for departing aircraft, using their terms and conditions of use; some examples of these are given at the end of this Answer, along with details of the limits in question and the penalties imposed. The Government are aware of one airport—Stansted—that levies penalties for flagrant or persistent deviation from flight path as part of its terms and conditions of use.
	Noise and track-keeping systems are required to assess breaches of departure noise limits and deviation from noise preferential routes. These systems are potentially costly to install and run and it may therefore not be appropriate for smaller airports to impose noise controls that require this apparatus.
	There are a variety of ways in which airport operators may manage the noise impact of their operations, which should be selected and used in response to local circumstances. These may include curfews, restrictions on the number or type of aircraft permitted to fly at night, or overall limits on the number of aircraft movements at an airport; the Government also expect operators of larger airports voluntarily to offer noise insulation for residential and community buildings subject to certain levels of noise. The operation of noise penalty schemes needs to be seen in the context of these other measures.
	As noted above, the Government do not collect or hold information about the funds raised by airports that impose penalties for breach of their departure noise limits, or the purposes to which those funds are put. However, examples of such information are given at the end of this Answer.
	Nor does the Government collect information about how all penalty schemes are administered. However, it can be seen from the examples provided that a community trust fund is frequently established to administer grants, with local authorities and representatives of the airport's consultative committee generally included as trustees. It is also common practice for the consultative committee to be informed about the operation of the scheme. Those funds which are registered charities will receive independent regulation from the Charity Commission.
	The Secretary of State has set departure noise limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. These are 94dBA in daytime (0700-2300); 89dBA between 2300-2330 and 0600-0700; and 87dBA in the night quota period, 2330-0600. BAA, the operator of these three airports, charges aircraft operators £500 for an exceedance of the relevant noise limit, or £1,000 if the aircraft breaches the limit by 3dBA or more.
	The Secretary of State has also set noise preferential routes for aircraft departing from these airports. Each airport has a noise and track-keeping (NTK) system in place to monitor breaches of the departure noise limits and deviations from the noise preferential routes. As noted above, Stansted Airport imposes a surcharge of £500 for each flagrant failure to adhere to a noise preferential route.
	At Heathrow Airport, the BAA Heathrow noise fines fund has used the income generated from fines for breaching the departure noise limits to provide noise insulation for local schools and community halls; the fund is being reviewed, given that the needs of schools and other noise-sensitive buildings should be met by the airport's new community buildings noise insulation scheme.
	At Gatwick Airport, the Gatwick Airport Community Trust is a registered charity set up in 2001. The trust receives the money raised from fining for breaches of the departure noise limits, in addition to an annual donation of £100,000 per year (index-linked) until 2008 from BAA Gatwick. It grants money to projects that benefit the area around the airport, including environmental or conservation schemes and projects that benefit community life or improve community facilities. In 2004 the trust made grants for a wide range of purposes, including tree planting, play facilities in a rural community and music in residential homes.
	At Stansted Airport, until this year the consultative committee has advised the airport on the distribution of funds raised from noise and track-keeping infringements. The Stansted Airport Community Trust Fund, a registered charity, has now been set up to deal with this. The trust is also being funded through a donation of £100,000 per year from the Airport until 2012. The trust is managed by independent trustees representing local authorities in the area of the airport, and makes grants to projects that protect and enhance the social, economic and environmental well-being of the community.
	Manchester Airport sets departure noise limits of 92dBA/105PNdB in the day and 85dBA/98 PNdB at night (2300-0659). The minimum penalty for exceeding the limit is £500, and a further £150 is applied for each PNdB in excess of the noise limit.
	Manchester Airport has a NTK system to monitor aircraft noise, and has set up preferred noise routes to minimise the impact of noise from departing aircraft. It has lobbied for many years for the power to charge penalties for failure to observe these preferred noise route corridors. Clause 4 of the Bill will give operators of non-designated airports this power.
	The Manchester Airport Community Trust Fund is a registered charity set up by the airport. It has a board of trustees including representatives of the local authorities whose areas are eligible for grants from the fund (the "area of benefit"). It considers applications from not-for-profit groups that aim to improve the environment or social welfare within that area, and specifies that projects should be open to all and demonstrate wide, lasting benefit to all members of the community.
	Since the fund was set up in 1997 it has donated £1.7 million to over 500 projects. The airport donates £150,000 per year to the fund in addition to donating the money it levies for breaches of the departure noise limits.
	Birmingham International Airport sets departure noise limits of 92dBA in the day and 87dBA at night (2330-0600). The penalty for breaches of the daytime limit is £500 plus £150 for each full decibel over 92dBA; the penalty for night-time breaches is a surcharge of the full runway charge payable for that aircraft.
	The airport has set up noise preferential routes for departing aircraft and has an NTK system in place.
	Birmingham International Airport has set up a community trust fund. A registered charity, it receives £55,000 from the airport each year in addition to the penalties levied for breaches of its departure noise limits. The fund invests in projects that directly benefit areas affected by the airport, and are aimed at improving quality of life through heritage conservation, environment improvement and education, encouraging and protecting wildlife or social and leisure activities.
	It is operated by nine trustees who are nominees of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Birmingham City Council, the airport consultative committee and the airport company. Since the trust was launched in January 1998 around 250 grants totalling over £530,000 have been awarded to local community projects.
	Nottingham East Midlands Airport sets departure noise limits at night and fines operators of aircraft that breach those limits. It also has an NTK system in place and has noise preferential routes for departing aircraft.
	The Nottingham East Midlands Airport Community Fund was set up in April 2002 and has donated over £130,000 to community initiatives since then. This includes £79,550 raised through fining airlines for breaches of the night-time noise limits. The fund is administered by a committee including members of the airport's consultative committee and representatives of the airport.
	London Luton Airport sets departure noise limits of 94dBA in the day and 87dBA at night (2330-0600 Monday to Saturday, 2330-0700 Sunday). The penalties are a surcharge based on the combined landing and air navigation charges for the aircraft concerned. For a daytime breach this is 400 per cent of that combined charge; for night-time breaches the operator is charged a 300 per cent surcharge for a breach at 88-91dBA, a 500 per cent surcharge for a breach at 92-95dBA, and a 600 per cent surcharge for a breach of 95dBA and above.

Alcohol Consumption

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the per capita consumption of units of alcohol in the United Kingdom in 1950; 1960; 1970; 1980; 1990; and 2000.

Lord Warner: The data are not available in the exact format requested. We are unable to provide information on the units of alcohol consumed in the United Kingdom. We are able to provide estimated data on alcohol clearances in units per capita, for the UK. Alcohol clearances are the quantities of duty paid on alcoholic drinks released for consumption in the UK.
	We have also provided estimated data for weekly alcohol consumption for the years available (1990 and 2000), for Great Britain.
	The information available is presented in the following tables.
	
		United Kingdom alcohol clearances in units per capita, 1950–2001
		
			   
			  Units 
			 Financial year Beer Wine Spirits Cider and Perry Total Alcohol 
			 1950–51 337 13 103 — 452 
			 1960–61 344 22 109 — 475 
			 1970–71 411 39 125 — 575 
			 1980–81 465 103 176 20 764 
			 1990–91 451 145 172 34 803 
			 2000–01 400 228 159 51 837 
		
	
	Notes:
	The figures for beer prior to 1993–94 have been adjusted to make them comparable with those of later years. The figures for cider were first collected in 1976–77. One unit of alcohol is defined as 10ml of pure alcohol. Population estimates are for all ages; that is, the UK population. Alcohol clearances are by financial year; ONS mid-year population estimates are by calendar year.
	Source:
	Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs clearances of pure alcohol; Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates.
	
		Mean weekly alcohol consumption in units, 1990 and 2000 -- Persons aged 16 and over
		
			  Unweighted 1990 Weighted 2000 
			 Total 11 12 
			 Weighted base (000's) n/a 42,369 
			 Unweighted sample 17,521 14,081 
		
	
	Source:
	General Household Survey; Office for National Statistics
	Notes:
	The two tables provided are not comparable as they are derived from different data sources; one is based on the United Kingdom and the second is based on Great Britain. Data for England are not readily available.

Aviation Health: Contaminated Air

Lord Tyler: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the airworthiness design requirements of JAR/FAR 25 (large aeroplanes) require the air in crew and passenger compartments to be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes.

Aviation Health: Fresh Air

Lord Tyler: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the airworthiness design requirements of JAR/FAR 25 (large aeroplanes) require each crew compartment to have enough fresh air to enable crew members to perform their duties without undue discomfort and fatigue.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes.

British Overseas Territories

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to promote good governance in British Overseas Territories.

Lord Triesman: Good governance is a fundamental part of the partnership between the Government and the Overseas Territories as set out in the 1999 White Paper Partnership for Progress and Prosperity—Britain and the Overseas Territories. There is continuous dialogue between the Government and representatives of Overseas Territories' governments across a wide range of issues in this field. The subject was on the agenda of the 2004 and 2005 annual Overseas Territories Consultative Councils (OTCC) which each year bring together Overseas Territories' Chief Ministers, or equivalents, and UK Government Ministers.
	The Government support good governance in the territories in a number of practical ways. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) funds a law enforcement adviser, a financial services adviser and a prisons adviser for the territories. An economist based in the FCO makes regular visits, particularly to the Caribbean Overseas Territories, to provide advice on financial matters. Other government departments, including the Department for International Development and Department for Transport, provide further specialist advice as required. The FCO has a Good Government Fund of £3.5 million a year that is available to all the Overseas Territories.

Buxton Memorial Fountain

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will complete the restoration of the Buxton Memorial Fountain in Victoria Tower Gardens in time for the 2007 bicentenary of the abolition of slavery.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Royal Parks are currently in the process of assessing the likely costs of restoring the Buxton Memorial Fountain. Once that work is complete, a decision on a possible restoration programme will be taken in the light of available resources.

China: Human Rights

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they are making to the Government of China regarding allegations of human rights abuses against practitioners of Falun Gong.

Lord Triesman: We raised the matter of human rights abuses against Falun Gong practitioners at the UK-China human rights dialogue in June 2005. Falun Gong cases have been included among individual cases of concern on which we have sought responses from the Chinese authorities. Cases of Falun Gong practitioners were also raised at the EU-China human rights dialogue in October. We will continue to raise individual cases where appropriate.

Commission for Equality and Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider their decision to establish the headquarters of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in Manchester rather than in London.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) will be located in Manchester and London, with the majority of staff in Manchester and a significant presence in London. There will also be offices in Glasgow and Cardiff to cover the CEHR activities in Scotland and Wales. The CEHR will also have a regional presence across Great Britain to enable it to carry out its work, either directly or in partnership with local communities.
	This decision followed a comprehensive independent study that examined a number of options. An equality impact assessment and a race equality impact assessment were also carried out on all the location options identified in the study. Ministers have commissioned further detailed work on how the staff and the various functions of the CEHR are to be split between the two main locations. All the existing commissions will be fully engaged in this task.

Commission for Racial Equality

Lord Ouseley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any non-compliance notices have been raised by the Commission for Racial Equality against any government departments over the past 18 months.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Commission for Racial Equality has not issued any compliance notices against any government departments over the past 18 months.

Crossrail

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to announce the appointment of the chairman of Cross London Rail Links Limited.

Lord Davies of Oldham: An announcement will be made in due course.

Deforestation

Earl Peel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What approach they are taking to the Coalition of Rainforest Nations' Initiative under the framework convention and the Kyoto Protocol; and
	What approach they have taken to including compensation for avoided deforestation as a tool to promote sustainable development, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and encourage bio-diversity; and what they are doing to promote and support such mechanisms; and
	What is their strategy, and timetable, for identifying technical and scientific policies to enable developing countries to gain access to the carbon market as an incentive for reducing emissions from deforestation.

Lord Bach: The Government's policy is that emissions reductions from reduced deforestation should be part of developing countries' participation in climate change agreements and our strategy to achieve this is to participate actively in the negotiations and associated technical discussions that can bring it about.
	Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, supported by other countries making up the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, proposed to the 11 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which took place recently in Montreal, that emissions reductions relative to a national baseline could be used as a measure of achievement.
	The UK believes the proposal is very interesting, especially given the potential for significant co-benefits for communities dependent on forests and for biodiversity, as well as for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. There are nevertheless significant technical issues to consider, including on how baselines would in practice be defined, and emissions relative to them measured. These questions need to be resolved before this or any other proposal could provide a basis for quantification of emissions saved, and hence valuation in carbon markets. In the Government's view it is not useful to speculate about the detailed modalities for engagement until these technical issues are better understood; but clearly linkage, if participation were linked to Kyoto Protocol carbon markets, would be after the first commitment period, for which the rules are already set.
	Having discussed the proposal in Montreal, the parties to the UNFCCC agreed to submit its views on the issues by the end of March 2006. The Conference of Parties requested the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) under the UNFCCC to start consideration of the issue, at its 24th session which will be in May 2006, following the submissions. There will be a workshop on the issue following the 24th session of the SBSTA and the SBSTA will report on its findings at its 27th session, in December 2007. The UK, as part of the EU, will contribute detailed technical views, initially via the March 2006 submission, and will seek resolution of the issues in the negotiations in a manner that contributes to the objectives of the UNFCCC and helps realise the co-benefits for communities and for biodiversity.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport: Definition of "Culture"

Lord Inglewood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their definition of the word "culture" in the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: What makes up "culture" is diverse and constantly developing and is not something that can easily be put in a simple definition. However, the cultural work of the department includes architecture and the historic environment, the Royal Parks and Royal Palaces, the performing and visual arts, museums, galleries, libraries and archives, creative industries and tourism.

Department for Transport: Secondments

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many individuals within the Department for Transport are currently on secondment from BAA, and vice versa; and what are the details of those secondments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: There have been no secondments between the Department for Transport and BAA since the department was created in 2002.

Department for Transport: Transport Research Laboratory

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there has been an internal review within the Department for Transport in the past year in respect of the award of contracts between the department and the Transport Research Laboratory; and, if so, (a) what was the title of the official who authorised the review, (b) why the review was conducted, and (c) what was its timescale.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Contracts for transport-related research and consultancy services, including those awarded to the Transport Research Laboratory, were reviewed as part of the department's supplier management programme. The review was undertaken under the direction of the central department's head of procurement as part of an ongoing review of key suppliers to the department.

Doctors: CueDoc

Lord Campbell-Savours: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total cost of CueDoc, which provides general practitioner cover to the National Health Service in North Cumbria, in each of the past three years, including all expenses and remuneration.

Lord Warner: The information requested is not held centrally.

EU Flag

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any proposals to legalise the flying of the European Union flag; if so, when these proposals will be brought forward; and in what form.

Baroness Andrews: As previously announced the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be consulting on new draft Control of Advertisements Regulations which will include a provision to allow the EU flag to be flown without having to apply to the local authority for express consent. All national flags already benefit from this exemption. We expect the new Control of Advertisements Regulations to come into force in 2006.

EU: Free Trade Agreements

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 5 July 2004 (WA 64), with which non-European Union countries the European Union has free trade agreements which have entered into force since that date.

Lord Triesman: The EU-Algeria Association Agreement came into force on 1 September 2005. The autonomous trade measures concessions agreement to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro was extended for a further five years at the 7 November General Affairs and External Relations Council.

Extraordinary Rendition Flights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 December (Official Report, col. GC 169), whether the Chicago convention needs to be interpreted and applied in a way which is compatible with the obligations imposed by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the European Convention on Human Rights and customary international law, so as to ensure that the states parties to the convention do not exercise the right to international air travel in a manner which facilitates acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of international human rights law.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Her Majesty's Government abide by their obligations under international law and would not facilitate the transfer of an individual from or through the UK to another state where there were grounds to believe that the person would face a real risk of torture. The Government believe their application and interpretation of the Chicago convention is entirely compatible with their other international obligations.

Extraordinary Rendition Flights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 December (Official Report, cols. GC 168–69), whether foreign aircraft involved in acts of rendition by or on behalf of the intelligence, security or police services of the United States are considered to be state aircraft or civil aircraft for the purposes of the Chicago convention; and, if the latter, what are their reasons; and
	Further to the statement by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 8 December (Official Report, cols. GC 168–69), whether foreign aircraft involved in acts of rendition by or on behalf of the United States require special authorisation from the United Kingdom before flying over or landing on United Kingdom territory, in accordance with Article 3(c) of the Chicago convention; and, if not, what are their reasons for not requiring this authorisation; and
	Whether authorisation has been sought during the past three years for state aircraft to fly over or land in the United Kingdom while engaged in acts of rendition for or on behalf of the United States.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the right honourable and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on 12 December (Official Report, Commons, 12/12/05; col. 1652W).

Flood Defences

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much each local authority has received specifically for flood defences in each of the past eight years, broken down (a) on a per capita basis of population in each local authority; and (b) by miles of coastline per local authority.

Lord Bach: Defra has policy responsibility for flood risk management in England, funds most of the Environment Agency's flood-related work and grant aids individual capital improvement projects undertaken by local authorities and internal drainage boards. The programme to manage risk is driven by these operating authorities; Defra does not build defences or direct the authorities on which specific projects to undertake.
	The Environment Agency is the principal authority with responsibility for flood risk management in England, including risk from flooding by the sea. Local authorities do very much less work in this area and this will reduce further as responsibility for some of the watercourses they currently manage is transferred to the agency.
	This funding for local authorities is a mixture of direct capital grant and supported capital expenditure (revenue) (SCE(R)). SCE(R) is approved by Defra and results in revenue support grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) over several years. SCE(R) replaced supplementary credit approval (SCA) after 2003–04.
	Local authorities also receive a large amount of grant and SCE(R) from Defra for capital improvement projects to manage the risk from coastal erosion. These often provide significant benefits against flooding from the sea but I regret that I would not be able to identify the grant that could be considered to be related to this particular benefit without incurring disproportionate cost.
	I have arranged for a copy of the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House. Local authorities receive further revenue support grant from the ODPM for other—for example, maintenance and operational—spend on flood risk management but I have not included this.

General Practitioners: Choose and Book

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 23 November (WA 218) on the Choose & Book (C&B) capital incentive scheme to provide incentives to primary care, how many of the more than 28,000 general practitioners who have registered to use C&B are currently not doing so; and why.

Lord Warner: Data on the number of individual general practitioners making referrals through the Choose and Book system is not collected centrally. However, 1,960 GP practices have started to use the Choose and Book system to make referrals, out of about 8,500 GP practices in England.

Government of Ireland Act 1920

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was repealed; and for what reason.

Lord Rooker: The Government of Ireland Act was repealed by Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Sections 1 and 2 of the Northern Ireland Act give effect to the relevant commitment contained in the Good Friday agreement to repeal the 1920 Act and to enshrine Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom and the principle of consent.

Hamas

Baroness Tonge: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contact or discussions they have had with Hamas' political leaders.

Lord Triesman: We do not have contact with the Hamas leadership. We will have no dialogue with them so long as they advocate violence and do not accept Israel's right to exist.

Heavy Goods Vehicles: Hours of Work

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 1 December (WA 63–65), what representations they have made to the authorities of the Irish Republic about repeated breaches of drivers' hours regulations in Wales by Irish lorry drivers during the past six months.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer of 14 December 2005 (Official Report, col. WA 163).

House of Lords: Mobile Telephones

Lord Avebury: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether the appropriate Committee of the House will consider measures to deter the ringing of mobile telephones in the Chamber, including the recording of the responsible Members' names in a public register of offenders and substantial fines payable to charities to be agreed.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: Paragraph 4.05 of the Companion states that:
	"Mobile telephones must be turned off in all public areas of the House, including the Chamber".
	In accordance with the principles of self-regulation, it is the responsibility of the House itself—that is, of all Members who are present—to draw attention to breaches of order or failures to observe customs.

Identity Cards: Department for Work and Pensions

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish (a) any analysis they have made of the potential use that the Department for Work and Pensions may make of the national identity register or identity cards introduced following enactment of the Identity Cards Bill; and (b) their estimate of the costs that will or may be incurred by the Department for Work and Pensions in connection with such use.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department for Work and Pensions contributed to the benefits overview document which was published by the identity cards programme in June 2005. The department has, in consultation with the identity cards programme, developed its current best estimate of the cost of using the ID cards scheme to support the services which it oversees and these costs have been incorporated into the business case. The department is represented on the Ministerial Committee on Identity Cards which oversees the work on benefits planning and realisation.
	We cannot release the detailed estimated costs for using the ID card scheme as some elements may be acquired from the market. The estimates are therefore commercially sensitive and to release them may prejudice the procurement process and the department's ability to obtain value for money from potential suppliers.

Identity Cards

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In arriving at the estimated annual cost of the implementation of the Identity Cards Bill, what is the assumed number of identity cards that will be issued over the first 10 years; and
	In arriving at the estimated annual cost of the implementation of the Identity Cards Bill, what is the assumed number of new passports that will be issued over the first 10 years; and
	In arriving at the estimated annual cost of the implementation of the Identity Cards Bill, what is the assumed number of passport renewals over the first 10 years.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It would not be appropriate to publish the current estimate of the assumptions of the number of identity cards which will be issued in the first 10 years as this may prejudice the department's ability to secure a value for money solution from potential suppliers. However an indication of the order of magnitude of the number can be given by examining the projected volume of passports which will be issued, as it is planned to link the issuing of passports to identity cards.
	In 1999–2000 1.3 million new adult passports (defined as adults who did not hold a passport as a child) were issued and in 2003–04 the figure was 634,130. In 2004–05 the figure was 715,644 and it is expected that 630,000 new adult passports will be issued in 2005–06. The number of new adult passports issued is expected to be 592,000 in 2006–07, 553,000 in 2007–08, 527,000 in 2008–09, 481,000 in 2009–10 and 439,000 in 2010–11. The reason for the decline in the numbers of first adult passports is that a large proportion of people now obtain a passport when they are a child. Therefore, the passport they receive as an adult is a renewal rather than a new adult passport. In 1999–2000 the number of adult passport renewals was 1,958,526; in 2003–04 it was 3,055,069; and the number of renewals in 2004–05 was 2,958,191.
	It is expected that the number of adults renewing their passport in the future will be as follows: 3,055,069 in 2005–06, 4,137,000 in 2006–07, 3,756,000 in 2007–08, 3,604,000 in 2008–09, 3,335,000 in 2009–10 and 3,545,000 in 2010–11. However, the number of passports issued to adults will not necessarily equate with the total number of identity cards issued given that people will be able to choose to apply for a stand-alone identity card. Replacement identity cards will also be issued in cases of change of name and if a card is lost, stolen or damaged.
	On 20 January 2005 the then current best estimate of the number of enrolments recorded in the national identity register by the end of the financial years 2012–13 and 2013–14 was published. The figures were 31,282,000 and 39,999,000 respectively (Official Report, Commons, 20/01/05; col. 1087W). Furthermore, the findings of research on the likely behaviour of UK nationals—including passport holders—was published in October 2005. This showed that demand for passports and ID cards holds up well compared with the current level of passport ownership in the adult population of 77 per cent 67 per cent of adults said they would obtain a passport/ID card package and 8 per cent. said they would obtain a stand-alone ID card at charges comparable with current best estimates of cost.

Identity Cards Bill: Department of Health

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish (a) any analysis they have made of the potential use that the Department of Health may make of the national identity register or identity cards introduced following enactment of the Identity Cards Bill; and (b) their estimate of the costs that will or may be incurred by the Department of Health in connection with such use.

Lord Warner: The Department of Health contributed to the benefits overview document which was published by the identity cards programme in June 2005. The department has, in consultation with the identity cards programme, developed its current best estimate of the cost of using the ID cards scheme to support the services which it oversees and these costs have been incorporated into the business case. The department is represented on the Ministerial Committee on Identity Cards which oversees the work on benefits planning and realisation.
	The detailed estimates are commercially sensitive and to release them may prejudice the procurement process and the department's ability to obtain value for money from potential suppliers.

Identity Cards: Scotland and Wales

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish (a) any analysis they have made of the potential use that the devolved authorities of Scotland and Wales may make of the National Identity Register or identity cards introduced following enactment of the Identity Cards Bill; and (b) their estimate of the costs that will or may be incurred by the devolved authorities of Scotland and Wales in connection with such use.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Scotland Office and the Wales Office have not made any analysis or estimate of the costs which might fall to the Scottish Executive or Welsh Assembly following on from enactment of the Identity Cards Bill, and have no plans to do so.

India: Human Rights

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their agenda for the forthcoming dialogue on human rights with the Government of India; whether discrimination against Dalits will be discussed at the first meeting; and what consultations they have held on this dialogue with European Union partners and non-governmental organisations.

Lord Triesman: The EU-India dialogue on human rights took place on 1 December in New Delhi. The agenda for the dialogue, which was agreed between EU partners and the Government of India, included multilateral issues, minorities and treatment of immigrants, human rights and security. Within the context of an informative and constructive discussion on minorities, the EU Troika raised the considerable public and parliamentary interest in the EU in Dalit issues in India. This included the issue of Dalit conversions to certain religions, which resulted in the loss of certain privileges and reservations and India's obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Both sides were keen to take forward these discussions and this will be taken forward by future EU presidencies. We also hope that this dialogue might lead to a further ad hoc dialogue between minorities experts from the EU and India.
	The UK presidency in New Delhi consulted European Union colleagues regularly in the lead-up to the EU-India human rights dialogue. An EU Working Group on Human Rights has existed in New Delhi for a number of years. The British High Commission in New Delhi maintains regular contact with a wide range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society groups in respect to a range of human rights issues, including minority and Dalit rights. Ministers in the UK and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have also held meetings with NGOs to discuss issues relating to human rights in India.

Influenza Pandemic

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what assumptions they have determined the amounts of Tamiflu ordered in preparation for an influenza pandemic; and whether they see any cause to revise these assumptions in the light of the speech of Dr John Beigel of the United States National Institutes of Health at the conference addressed by the Chief Medical Officer on 16 November.

Lord Warner: We are aware of the issues raised by Dr John Beigel regarding antivirals and we were already looking into them when he raised them. We will continue to review our antiviral strategy and these issues, such as antiviral resistance and post-exposure prophylaxis, will be discussed in detail at the next Scientific Advisory Group.

Iran: Capital Punishment

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made representations to the Government of Iran regarding the number of persons who have been executed in Iran since Mr Ahmadinejad became President.

Lord Triesman: In our role as presidency of the European Union, we have pressed the Iranian authorities on Iran's use of capital punishment six times in the period since President Ahmadinejad was inaugurated in early August. We did so most recently on 8 December.

Iran: Presidential Comments on Israel

Lord Dykes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make representations, during their presidency of the European Union, to President Ahmadinejad of Iran concerning his remarks about the future of Israel on 8 December.

Lord Triesman: On 8 December, President Ahmadinejad reportedly questioned the existence of the Holocaust and proposed that Israel should be moved to Europe. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, acting on behalf of the UK presidency of the European Union, condemned the comments unreservedly. He called them wholly unacceptable and said they had no place in civilised political debate.

Iraq: Iranian Involvement in Prisons

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have evidence of official Iranian involvement with a prison at Jadariya in Iraq where torture may have occurred; and, if so, whether they will make representations to the Government of Iran about this matter.

Lord Triesman: We have no evidence of official Iranian involvement in any prison in Iraq.

Kazakhstan: UK Ambassador

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many times the United Kingdom ambassador to Kazakhstan visited the capital, Astana, during the four weeks ending 4 December.

Lord Triesman: Our ambassador visited Astana for four successive weeks up to 4 November and then again on 16 November. He was there again on 14 December for a farewell call on the Foreign Minister.

Kazakhstan: UK Ambassador

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the United Kingdom ambassador to Kazakhstan last had a personal meeting with the president in Astana.

Lord Triesman: Our ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan is leaving the country on 16 December. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to arrange a final call on the president, not least due to the recent presidential elections. But we hope that soon after his arrival our new ambassador will have the opportunity to present his credentials and meet the president.
	Understandably, individual meetings with the president do not take place often. However, since presenting his own credentials, the current ambassador has met the president on several occasions at receptions, conferences or when accompanying high-level visitors such as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in February 2004.

M11

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 9 December (WA 131), whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the written advice from officials to Ministers in the Department for Transport regarding the decision to abandon the widening of the M11.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Officials' advice to Ministers on the widening of the M11 between Junctions 8 and 9 was policy advice within government and it would not be appropriate to place it in the Library. I have, however, arranged for the letter that an official from the department sent to the secretary to the panel for the examination in public of the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy on 14 November to be placed in the Library. The letter sets out the reasons why we decided that widening of the M11 between Junctions 8 and 9 should not be progressed within the next 10 to 15 years.

Identity Cards: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish— (a) any analysis they have made of the potential use that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may make of the national identity register or identity cards introduced following enactment of the Identity Cards Bill; and (b) their estimate of the costs that will or may be incurred by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in connection with such use.

Lord Triesman: The department has not finalised its estimates of the benefits or costs of using the ID cards scheme to support the services which it oversees.

NHS Blood Products: Inquiries

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What inquiries the Department of Health has received from former Health Ministers to examine files dating from their years at the department relating to contaminated National Health Service blood products; what replies they have given to those inquiries; and what further responses, if any, they have received from the former Ministers.

Lord Warner: In December last year, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding contacted Ministers about access to papers on the treatment of haemophilia patients and blood safety dating back to the period when he was Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security. Lord Jenkin has also been in touch with the chief executive and officials in the Department of Health.
	Lord Jenkin has received several letters from the department and met with the chief executive on 13 April 2005. In addition, he visited the department on two occasions to inspect files dating back to his period in office. A number of papers were released at his request. However, we acknowledged early on in Lord Jenkin's enquiries that a number of papers from the 1970s and 1980s have been destroyed in error.

NHS Litigation Authority

Baroness Barker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total budget of the NHS Litigation Authority; and what they estimate it to be following the establishment of the NHS Redress Scheme proposed in the NHS Redress Bill.

Lord Warner: The indicative revenue resource limit (budget) for the NHS Litigation Authority in 2005–06 is £14,453,000. The total budget for 2005–06 can only be confirmed at year end due to the demand-led nature of NHSLA work. It is not possible to estimate the total budget of the NHSLA following the establishment of the NHS Redress Scheme proposed in the NHS Redress Bill as the functions of the NHSLA in relation to NHS Redress have not yet been approved by Parliament.

NHS Litigation Authority

Baroness Barker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many staff are employed by the NHS Litigation Authority; and how many they estimate will be employed following the establishment of the NHS Redress Scheme proposed in the NHS Redress Bill.

Lord Warner: The NHS Litigation Authority has an agreed whole-time equivalent maxima of 176. As at 14 December 2005, the NHSLA employed a whole-time equivalent of 155 staff. It is not possible to estimate the whole-time equivalent number of staff the NHSLA will employ following the establishment of a NHS Redress Scheme as the functions of the NHSLA in relation to NHS Redress have not yet been approved by Parliament.

NHS Litigation Authority

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What duties are placed upon the NHS Litigation Authority to reduce the level of claims sought against the National Health Service for clinical negligence; and how the performance of the authority in this area is assessed.

Lord Warner: The NHS Litigation Authority was established on 20 November 1995 by the Secretary of State for Health to perform such functions in connection with the establishment of a scheme under Section 21 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (scheme for meeting liabilities of health bodies), and such other functions as the Secretary of State may direct the authority to perform on his behalf. Five schemes were established (the existing liabilities scheme, the ex-regional health authority scheme, the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, the liabilities for third parties scheme and the property expenses scheme) and the NHSLA was required to administer these schemes.
	The Government have not placed any duty upon the NHSLA to reduce the level of claims sought against the NHS for clinical negligence and performance of the authority is not assessed in this area. However, the NHSLA promotes good practice in the NHS by risk assessing all scheme members once every two years against a set of risk management targets. Trusts are incentivised in two ways: first, the level of risk management is assessed against three levels of attainment, achieving a discount of contributions into the clinical negligence scheme for trusts as attainment increases. Secondly, the risk management systems assist NHS scheme members to drive down the levels of incidents, which in turn reduces the levels of compensation claims.

NHS: Local Improvement Finance Trust

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the conclusions contained in the report by the think tank Reform that (a) the local improvement finance trust model should be expanded into secondary as well as primary care; and (b) the model provides for greater local choice and flexibility than private finance initiative schemes.

Lord Warner: It is currently possible for some secondary care schemes to be taken forward by a local improvement finance trust (LIFT) company. However, it is for local health economies to determine their best procurement option for delivering new healthcare facilities. Their options could include LIFT, the private finance initiative or public capital with consideration given to achieving an optimum level of risk transfer and appropriate payment and performance mechanisms to deliver a value for money project.

NHS: Local Improvement Finance Trust

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have carried out of the local improvement finance trust model being used for primary care building projects in excess of £25 million.

Lord Warner: The local improvement finance trust (LIFT) is one of a number of procurement options open to primary care trusts to develop primary care facilities. In deciding which option to take they will need to ensure that it provides relevant risk transfer and that appropriate payment and performance mechanisms are in place to deliver a value for money project. This is documented through their business cases. There has been no national assessment of the application of LIFT model to primary care building projects in excess of £25 million.

NHS: Local Improvement Finance Trust

Earl Howe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which of the local improvement finance trust schemes have reached financial close, broken down by wave; what the total value of each scheme is; and what is the total investment for each scheme from (a) the public sector, and (b) the private sector.

Lord Warner: Forty-two local improvement finance trusts (LIFT) have reached financial close in three waves. The total capital value of financially closed schemes undertaken by these trusts is over £740 million. The following table gives the total capital value of these schemes for each trust.
	Total investment figures for each scheme are not collected centrally. However, as a general rule, private investment is 96 per cent, and the public sector investment is 4 per cent, of the total value.
	
		
			 LIFT Status Capital value of financially-closed schemes £ms* 
			 Wave 1 
			 Barnsley Financial Close 13.12 
			 Camden and Islington Financial Close 3.50 
			 East London Financial Close 29.19 
			 Manchester, Salford and Trafford Financial Close 39.06 
			 Newcastle and N Tyne Financial Close 13.40 
			 Sandwell Financial Close 9.80 
			 Wave 2 
			 Barking and Havering Financial Close 25.00 
			 Birmingham and Solihull Financial Close 9.10 
			 Bradford Financial Close 14.00 
			 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Financial Close 3.46 
			 Coventry Financial Close 7.00 
			 East Lancashire Financial Close 53.80 
			 Hull Financial Close 6.55 
			 Leicester Financial Close 15.40 
			 Liverpool and Sefton Financial Close 10.64 
			 Medway Financial Close 18.20 
			 North Staffordshire Financial Close 7.50 
			 Redbridge and Waltham Forest Financial Close 15.06 
			 Wave 3 
			 Ashfield (N Notts) Financial Close 33.74 
			 Ashton, Leigh and Wigan Financial Close 30.00 
			 Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Financial Close 13.60 
			 Brent and Harrow Financial Close 17.50 
			 Bristol Financial Close 15.90 
			 Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich Financial Close 28.70 
			 Colchester and Tendring Financial Close 35.80 
			 Derby Financial Close 16.80 
			 Doncaster Financial Close 8.89 
			 Dudley Financial Close 13.20 
			 Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Financial Close 28.60 
			 E Hants, Fareham and Gosport Financial Close 7.80 
			 Gedling (Gt Notts) Financial Close 33.50 
			 Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Financial Close 30.70 
			 Leeds Financial Close 18.10 
			 Norfolk Financial Close 3.98 
			 Oldham Financial Close 2.52 
			 Oxford Financial Close 16.00 
			 Plymouth Financial Close 14.60 
			 S E Sheffield Financial Close 5.00 
			 S W London Financial Close 18.48 
			 St Helens, Knowsley and Warrington Financial Close 28.70 
			 Tees Valley Financial Close 17.17 
			 Wolverhampton Financial Close 8.00 
			 Wave 4 
			 Bolton, Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton OJEU Not Applicable 
			 Bury, Tameside and Glossop OJEU Not Applicable 
			 South East Midlands OJEU Not Applicable 
			 South Essex ITN Not Applicable 
			 South Midlands OJEU Not Applicable 
			 South West Hants OJEU Not Applicable 
			 Sustainable Communities Kent OJEU Not Applicable 
			 Wiltshire OJEU Not Applicable 
			 Total  741.06 
		
	
	* Capital value of financially closed schemes is the capital value of the LIFT facilities that have reached financial close under each LIFT trust.

NHS: Overseas Visitors

Baroness Tonge: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes have been made to the charges for overseas visitors, failed asylum seekers, visa over-stayers and others of undocumented residency status, for services from the National Health Service, including HIV/AIDS treatment and maternity care.

Lord Warner: The NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations came into force in 1989. Since then they have occasionally been amended, most recently and significantly in 2004. The regulations state that anyone who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom is classed as being an overseas visitor and will therefore be charged for any National Health Service hospital treatment they receive unless exempted by one of a number of exemption categories listed in the regulations. One amendment in 2004 was to the "12-month residency" exemption in order to ensure that only those who have been lawfully living in the UK for the 12 months preceding treatment can benefit from this exemption. Persons who are not lawfully residing here can no longer rely on this exemption to get free hospital treatment.
	No changes have been made in respect of HIV/AIDS treatment or maternity care.

Non-governmental Organisations: Russian Legislation

Baroness Rawlings: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the reply by the Baroness Royall of Blaisdon to the Lord Swinfen (HL Deb, col. 614), which Russian non-governmental organisations are operating in the United Kingdom; and why.

Lord Triesman: In the UK, international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not required to seek accreditation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We therefore do not have a list of Russian NGOs operating here, but we believe that any that may be operating here or may choose to come in the future would find their freedom to conduct business to be in stark contrast to the kinds of restrictions that may result from the NGO law currently in draft in the Russian Duma.

Northern Ireland Events Company

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 November (WA 42) on the Northern Ireland Events Company, why no increase in funding for the period 2006–08 is planned.

Lord Rooker: The financial allocations for 2006–07 and 2007–08 to Northern Ireland departments, and their sponsored bodies, were determined by the Secretary of State and his Northern Ireland ministerial team, having regard to the Government's spending priorities.

Northern Ireland Office: Cost Benefit Analysis

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For which types of projects or policies each Northern Ireland department requires a cost benefit analysis to be carried out.

Lord Rooker: Cost benefit analysis is a particular type of economic appraisal. Current guidance in relation to economic appraisal was issued by the Department of Finance and Personnel in the form of a Dear Accounting Officer letter (DAO(DFP)32/03) which introduced the Northern Ireland Practical Guide to the Green Book. The principles in this guide must be applied, with appropriate and proportionate effort, to all proposals that involve spending or saving public money, including EU funds, or changes in the use of public resources. They apply equally to policies, programmes and projects. There are no exceptions to this general requirement. The guidance applies to all departments and public bodies for which departments have responsibility.

Northern Ireland Office: Iceberg Watch

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the purpose of the document circulated amongst the Northern Ireland civil service entitled Iceberg Watch; and whether they will place copies in the Library of the House.

Lord Rooker: Iceberg watch was an internal Northern Ireland Office paper used as a means of looking forward and planning ahead. Such papers are not placed in the Library.

Northern Ireland Office: Questions for Written Answer

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Amos on 15 November, why the Northern Ireland Office has not answered the following Questions tabled by the Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (a) one Question Awaiting Answer for 36 days; (b) two Questions Awaiting Answer for 29 days; (c) four Questions Awaiting Answer for 28 days; and (d) two Questions Awaiting Answer for 23 days.

Lord Rooker: The Questions referred to by the noble Lord have now been answered. I am sorry for the delay.
	From 1 January 2005 to 19 December 2005, the Northern Ireland Office has received in excess of 4,400 Written Parliamentary Questions.
	Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of Questions, delays in replying can occur. However, I acknowledge there have been occasions when noble Lords have received unacceptably late replies. As a result, I have recently raised the issue with my officials, emphasising the importance of answering Questions for Written Answer from noble Lords within the 14-day deadline. I will continue to monitor the situation.

Northern Ireland Office: Questions for Written Answer

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Northern Ireland Office has not answered the following Questions tabled by the Lord Laird (a) 1 Question Awaiting Answer for 59 days [HL 1738]; (b) 2 Questions Awaiting Answer for 56 days [HL1745 and HL1746]; and (c) 1 Question Awaiting Answer for 54 days [HL 1812]; and
	What steps they have taken to reduce the time taken by the Northern Ireland Office to answer Questions for Written Answer.

Lord Rooker: The Questions referred to by the noble Lord in HL3004 have now been answered.
	From 1 January 2005 to 20 December 2005, the Northern Ireland Office has received in excess of 4,400 Written Parliamentary Questions. Of these, 471 were asked by the noble Lord. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of Questions, delays in replying can occur. However, I acknowledge there have been occasions when noble Lords have received unacceptably late replies. As a result, I have recently raised the issue with my officials, emphasising the importance of answering Questions for Written Answer from noble Lords within the 14-day deadline. I will continue to monitor the situation.

Northern Ireland Tourist Board: C S Lewis Memorial

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has been asked to fund a memorial to C S Lewis; and, if so, what the board's response was.

Lord Rooker: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) has not been asked to fund a memorial to C S Lewis.
	The NITB is aware that "The Searcher" by Ross Wilson, a sculpture in honour of C S Lewis, already exists at the Holywood Arches Library and was erected in 1998 to celebrate the centenary of his birth.

Northern Ireland Tourist Board: West Belfast Festival

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Northern Ireland Tourist Board received an application for funding for marketing from the West Belfast Festival in 2005; if so, when the board received the application; when it was agreed; when the funding was provided; and whether a copy of the supporting information will be placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Rooker: The NITS did not receive an application for funding for marketing from the West Belfast Festival in 2005.

Northern Ireland: "On the Runs"

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In relation to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, what was the process started at Weston Park in 2001 to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Hain, referred on 23 November (Official Report, Commons, col. 1535); who agreed to the process; and how that agreement was recorded.

Lord Rooker: The process to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland referred was the process of taking steps to address the issue of terrorist suspects on the run. The British and Irish Governments recognised the need to do this at Weston Park and this was recorded in the letter to party leaders of 1 August 2001. Further detail on the proposals was published in May 2003 and in the Government's response to the IRA statement of 28 July 2005.

Northern Ireland: "On the Runs"

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In relation to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, what was the agreement with the Irish Government referred to by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr Peter Hain, on 23 November (Official Report, House of Commons, col. 1535).

Lord Rooker: In May 2003, the Government issued a document entitled Proposals in Relation to On the Runs (OTRs). This document set out how the British Government planned to resolve the issue of "on the runs" identified at Weston Park. The document also says that the Irish Government would address similar cases in their jurisdiction. These proposals were published at the same time as the joint declaration following the talks at Hillsborough, but did not form a constituent part of that declaration.

Northern Ireland: "On the Runs"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which participants at the peace negotiations at Weston Park in 2001 were involved in discussions concerning measures to facilitate on the run terrorists returning to Northern Ireland.

Lord Rooker: Discussions at Weston Park involved a variety of participants from the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland political parties. A number of issues were discussed in that context and the letter to party leaders of 1 August 2001 set out the Governments' proposals on a way forward.

Northern Ireland: "On the Runs"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What reciprocal arrangements were made in connection with their agreement to on the run terrorists being allowed to return to Northern Ireland under the conditions now proposed.

Lord Rooker: In May 2003, the Government published a document entitled, Proposals in Relation to On the Runs (OTRs). The document stated that legislation would be brought forward to address the issue of OTRs, but was clear that this would be "within a context of acts of completion". The Government believe that the 28 July statement was intended to express acts of completion and introduced the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill on 9 November 2005.

Northern Ireland: "On the Runs"

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement made on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme on 23 November by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that they had made an agreement with the Irish Government and Sinn Fein that on the run terrorists would be excused punishment for their crimes without any appearance in court or giving of evidence, when that agreement was made; and when it was first made public.

Lord Rooker: The British and Irish Governments recognised the need to address the issue of "on the runs" at Weston Park and this was recorded in the letter to party leaders of 1 August 2001. Detailed proposals were published in May 2003. These referred to the question of appearance in a special tribunal. The proposals also made clear that the tribunal would sentence those convicted and that those individuals would be released immediately on licence. Both the 2001 letter and 2003 proposals were made public.

Northern Ireland: Criminal Asset Seizures

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In each of the past five years how much in assets has been seized from people involved in criminal activity in the Newtownhamilton, Crossmaglen, Forkhill and Jonesborough areas of South Armagh.

Lord Rooker: The law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland are having a significant impact on those engaged in criminal activity and last year restrained or confiscated assets totalling almost £12 million. Information of assets seized is not in a format that enables me to answer this specific Question and would require a manual trawl of records at disproportionate cost.

Northern Ireland: Definition of "Ex-prisoner"

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For grant aid purposes in Northern Ireland, what is their definition of an ex-prisoner.

Lord Rooker: It is commonly accepted that the term ex-prisoner refers to someone who has formerly been detained in a prison establishment.

Northern Ireland: Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 6 December (WA 94) regarding funding from the cultural policy allocation of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, what groups have been funded from this source in each of the past five years; when they were funded; for what purpose the funds were made available; how much each group was funded; and whether they will place copies of the business cases for each group in the Library of the House.

Lord Rooker: DCAL's cultural policy allocation was established for the budget year 2004–05. I have included a table below which details the cultural policy allocation expenditure in 2004–05 and the spend to date for 2005–06. Copies of the business cases for each group funded will be placed in the Library of the House.
	
		
			 Group Date of funding Purpose of funding Amount funded 
			 Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland April 2004– March 2005 Costs of education officer and associated project costs £30,346  
			 British Deaf Association (NI) April 2004– March 2005 Pilot scheme of BSL tutor training £4,600  
			 Hands That Talk April 2004– March 2005 Provision of manuals CD ROMs and other learning materials, to assist NVQ Level 1 students of Irish sign language (ISL) £12,600  
			 Iomairt Cholm Chille April 2004– March 2005 Recurrent programme costs (previously funded by another programme) £180,000  
			 Different Drums April 2004– March 2005 Drumbase project £4,500  
			 Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland April 2005– March 2006 Education officer £10,516(Note: full fundingnot released to date)  
			 Different Drums April 2005– March 2006 Drumbase project £4,398  
			 Maiden City Festival April 2005– March 2006 Maiden City Festival August 2005 (previously funded by another programme) £50,000  
			 Belfast County Grand Orange Lodge April 2005– March 2006 Better Twelfth initiative consultant and art competition £17,365(Note: full funding notreleased to date)  
			 Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education April 2005– March 2006 Touring costs of "Darkie" play £4,000  
			 Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People April 2005– March 2006 Interpreting and communication costs for Sign Fair event £2,000(Note: full funding notreleased to date)  
			 British Deaf Association April 2005– March 2006 Pilot scheme of BSL tutor training £2,000  
			 Hands That Talk April 2005– March 2006 Printing of ISL dictionary £1,750(Note: full funding notreleased to date)  
			 Ulster-Scots Academy April 2005– March 2006 Ulster-Scots Academy £71,898(Note: full funding notreleased to date)  
			 Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission April 2005– March 2006 Irish Language Broadcast Fund £1,551,825(Note: full funding notreleased to date)  
			 Iomairt Cholm Chille April 2005– March 2006 Recurrent running costs (previously funded by another programme) £115,000(Note: full funding notreleased to date)

Northern Ireland: Festivals

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 10 November (WA 102) concerning funding for festivals in West Belfast, New Lodge and Ardoyne in 2003, 2004 and 2005, why funding was not made available for similar activities as proposed by the Ulster-Scots Agency in its business cases for each of those years.

Lord Rooker: None of the Ulster-Scots Agency's business cases submitted to the sponsoring departments for the years in question mentioned its intention to support a specific Ulster-Scots festival.

Northern Ireland: Festivals

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 November (WA 44) on the funding of festivals in Northern Ireland, under what heading and identification the funding of festivals proposed by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for the three financial years in question was approved by Parliament.

Lord Rooker: Resources made available by DCAL to fund the three festivals in the three financial years in question were part of the department's annual budgets for arts and for the Northern Ireland Events Company as approved by Parliament in the annual Budget orders.

Northern Ireland: Immigrant Workers

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to deal with the issue of overcrowding in, and overcharging for, accommodation rented to immigrant workers in Northern Ireland.

Lord Rooker: Many migrant workers in Northern Ireland are living in accommodation which can be classified as houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). It is the responsibility of the Housing Executive to inspect privately rented houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and to enforce physical standards through the issues of statutory notices.
	The Housing Executive has actively taken steps to ascertain the addresses of multi-occupancy properties in which migrant workers are living by contacting employers and employment agencies and recognises the challenges posed in this particular area of remit by the arrival of increasing numbers of migrant workers in Northern Ireland. To date, approximately 170 properties occupied by migrant workers have been inspected and 80 statutory notices have been served. There are a further 36 notices in preparation at present.
	Under the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Rent Book Regulations 2004, every tenant must be provided with a rent book providing details of the rent and rates which can be charged for the tenancy. However, these provisions do not apply to lodgers and other licensees who are sharing accommodation either with their landlord or with someone else who is the tenant of the property as a whole.

Northern Ireland: Prosecutions

Baroness Park of Monmouth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When it is expected that charges will be brought in connection with the operation against Stormont on 4 October 2002.

Lord Rooker: This is solely a matter for the prosecuting authorities and not for the Northern Ireland Office.

Northern Ireland: Prostitution

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have evidence that young girls including immigrants are being used by organised crime syndicates for prostitution in Northern Ireland; and, if so, whether they will provide figures or other data for the years 2001 to 2004.

Lord Rooker: The Police Service of Northern Ireland is acutely aware of the problems experienced in other jurisdictions and continues to monitor the situation closely.
	PSNI works closely with the Immigration Service and An Garda Siochana on illegal immigration matters.

Northern Ireland: Robert McCartney

Baroness Park of Monmouth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When it is expected that charges will be brought in connection with the murder of Robert McCartney in January 2005.

Lord Rooker: The investigation into the murder of Robert McCartney is ongoing and the question of charges is a matter for the PPS. The PSNI advises that two persons have been charged with the murder of Mr McCartney and with the attempted murder of Brendan Devine. They are awaiting their pre-trial hearing.
	The investigation into the ancillary related offences surrounding the murder of Mr McCartney continues and to date has resulted in two arrests being made, with charges being reported to the Public Prosecution Service for conspiracy to murder, affray and one for assault. A full file is being forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service for these matters to be brought to trial.

Northern Ireland: School Closures

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the reply by the Lord Rooker on 10 November (Official Report, cols. 722-25) and his Written Answer on 30 November (WA 48), whether the average enrolment of 13.7 pupils at the time of closure of nine schools was precipitated by the intention to close them; what the average enrolments of these schools were in the two years prior to closure; and whether these closures can be reconciled with Northern Ireland's equality legislation and the objectives of the Belfast Agreement.

Lord Rooker: It was for the respective education authorities to consider the future viability of these schools in light of the trends in enrolments and to decide on proposals for closure.
	Decisions on closures of schools follows a statutory development proposal process and take account of suitable alternative provision for the children involved. I am content that school closures can be reconciled with the obligations under equality legislation and the objectives of the Belfast agreement.
	The individual school information showing enrolments averaged over the two years prior to closure is as follows:
	
		
			 Primary School Closure date Enrolment to closure—Two-year average prior to closure 
			 Ballypriormore 31/12/03 33 
			 St Joseph's, Lisconrea 31/8/03 18 
			 Toberlane 31/8/03 23 
			 Ballyrock 31/8/04 15 
			 Brackalislea 31/8/04 11 
			 Granville 31/8/05 20 
			 St Mary's, Laught 31/8/05 12 
			 Ardmore 31/8/06 15 
			 Loughbrickland 31/8/06 28

Northern Ireland: School Closures

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 November (WA 47), in light of the statement that the department does not require (and has never sought) the closure of schools in Northern Ireland with financial deficits, how they define "appropriate action" in resolving small schools' financial difficulties.

Lord Rooker: The Department of Education expects education and library boards (ELBs) as funding authorities to take action to ensure that boards of governors fulfil their responsibility to live within the budgets allocated to their schools. Where this does not happen, ELBs have the power to remove from a board of governors the right to a delegated budget.
	The department recognises also that a deficit budget can also be an indicator that a school may no longer be educationally sustainable and, in such circumstances, expects school managing authorities to consider how best to ensure that children have access to a high quality education.

Northern Ireland: Sinn Fein

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have given any undertakings, in writing or otherwise, to Sinn Fein concerning (a) further education policy in Northern Ireland; and (b) the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill; if so, why they have given such undertakings; when they were given; and whether they will publish all the related documents.

Lord Rooker: No undertakings have been made to Sinn Fein in respect of education policy in Northern Ireland.
	The Government published a document—Proposals in Relation to On the Runs (OTRs)—in May 2003 setting out how they intended to address the remaining issue of OTRs in the context of acts of completion by republican paramilitaries. The Government told Sinn Fein that legislation giving effect to this commitment would be announced immediately after an IRA statement signalling acts of completion and would be introduced when Parliament came back in the autumn. The Secretary of State, in his published letter to MPs of 28 July, said that the Government would introduce legislation in the autumn to resolve the outstanding issue of paramilitary suspects on the run. These commitments were made to demonstrate that the Government were ready to accept that the IRA's statement was intended to express acts of completion.

Northern Ireland: Tower Hill, Armagh City

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who requested the closure of Tower Hill in Armagh City; and for what reason.

Lord Rooker: The RUC requested the closure of Tower Hill in Armagh City. This was based on a security assessment by the RUC and was approved by the deputy ACC on 16 February 1996.

Northern Ireland: West Belfast Festival

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much funding they gave to the West Belfast Festival in 2005; from what funds this was given; and for what purposes.

Lord Rooker: The Department for Social Development provided £125,197 to the West Belfast Festival from urban regeneration funds to part deliver the August féile.

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in each of the past three years.

Lord Triesman: The United Kingdom's budgetary contributions to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe were £13.7 million in 2002–03, £17.8 million in 2003–04 and £17.8 million in 2004–05.

Pension Protection Fund

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, given the legal requirement on the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) to consult extensively on its proposals, they will advise the PPF to publish its proposed 2006–07 levy estimates on or before 9 January 2006 to enable employers to respond to the next round of consultation, which is scheduled to close on 23 January 2006.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The board of the pension protection fund published its final proposals for the 2006–07 levy along with its levy estimate on December 16. This follows a 12-week initial consultation period from July through to October and allows for a further consultation period of five weeks.

Pension Protection Fund

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they will take to ensure that employers' organisations and pension fund trustees have sufficient information and time to respond to proposals from the Pension Protection Fund regarding the 2006–07 levy.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The board of the Pension Protection Fund is required by legislation to consult widely on the pension protection levies. There has already been a 12-week consultation on initial proposals for the pension protection levies, which ran from July to October and in which opinion was sought from a wide variety of interested parties, including employers' organisations, pension fund trustees, lawyers, actuaries and other interested professionals. In October it published an interim report addressing several key concerns that had arisen during response to the consultation.
	Since then it has been considering the additional responses it received during the consultation. In a recent statement, the board announced that it will report on a revised set of proposals on 16 December and close the following consultation on these findings on 23 January. This gives a further five weeks for consultation on the pension protection levies proposals. Concerns raised by industry have been represented in the board's interim report and November statement and further details will be available in the 16 December publication.

Poultry and Captive Bird Import Restrictions

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the decision taken by the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection on easing restrictions placed on the importation of poultry and other captive birds and their products from Croatia, Romania and Turkey; which birds and products are considered susceptible; and whether they consider that the total ban should remain in place.

Lord Bach: The Government supported the proposal by the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection to ease the restrictions placed on the importation of poultry on the basis of evidence from the Commission that this would not increase the risk of avian influenza to member states. We agreed that a total ban would be disproportionate to the prevailing level of risk.

Powers of Entry

Lord Selsdon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what circumstances officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and of public bodies answerable to the Deputy Prime Minister, can search and enter the homes or business premises of United Kingdom citizens; and, in each case, what is the statutory authority for that power.

Baroness Andrews: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 23 November 2005, Official Report, cols. WA 218–19.
	In addition, officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and of public bodies answerable to the Deputy Prime Minister can search and enter homes or business premises of United Kingdom citizens provided under the following statutory authorities: Fire Precautions Act 1971
	Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Services; Assistant Inspectors of Fire Services; and any other person duly appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of enforcing the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 have power of non-forcible entry in respect of premises owned but not occupied by the Crown. Housing Act 1996
	The Housing Corporation has a power of entry to a property owned by a registered social landlord under Sections 37 and 38 of the Housing Act 1996.
	The corporation's power exists only to enable a survey or examination to be undertaken where it appears that the registered social landlord may be failing to maintain or repair the property in accordance with housing management guidance issued by the corporation under Section 36 of that Act. The use of the power is subject to giving proper notice to the landlord and the tenant. Town and Country Planning Act 1990
	Under Section 196A of the Act the Secretary of State has powers to authorise any person to enter any land, at any reasonable hour, to determine whether a planning enforcement notice should be issued, if there are reasonable grounds for entering the land for that purpose. Twenty-four hours notice must be given to the occupier if the building entered is a dwelling house.
	If the First Secretary of State makes a compulsory purchase order under Section 228 of the Act (land for the public service etc), a person authorised by him may at any reasonable time enter the land for the purposes of surveying it or estimating its value in connection with any proposal to acquire that land. Section 228 also allows for any such person to enter land in connection with any claim for compensation in respect of any such acquisition under Section 324(6) of the Act.
	Under Section 324 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a "duly authorised person" (authority must be in writing and from the Secretary of State) may enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with (e.g.) a planning appeal. In the case of occupied land they have to give the occupier 24 hours notice of their intention to enter. There are equivalent provisions in Section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and in Section 36 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990
	Section 324 makes provision for any person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State, at any reasonable time, to enter any land for the purpose of surveying it in connection with the preparation, revision, adoption or approval of a local development document under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It also makes provision for rights of entry where applications are made under Part 3 of the TCPA 1990. Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
	Two UDC planning orders confer on the corporations those functions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which are specified in Part 1 of Schedule 29 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 as are set out in the table in the schedule to this order (Article 4). These include (88) Rights of entry & (88A) Warrants to enter land.
	Under Section 88 of the Act, any person authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purposes of surveying any building on it in connection with a proposal to include the building on the list (compiled by the Secretary of State under Section 1 of this Act).
	It also makes provision for someone appointed in writing by the Secretary of State to enter any land in connection with a proposal under various sections of the Act, ascertaining whether any orders or notices have been complied with, ascertaining whether an offence has been committed and ascertaining whether any building is being maintained in a proper state of repair. In Greater London, English Heritage is empowered to enter for the same reasons. Compulsory Purchase Act 1965
	Under Section 11(1), where a compulsory purchase order has come into operation the First Secretary of State, once he has served a notice to treat, can enter and take possession of land having served a notice of entry which gives at least 14 days' notice. Section 11(2) and Schedule 3 allows for an alternative, but rarely used, procedure. Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981
	Where a general vesting declaration has been made under the Act, the land vests in the acquiring authority on the vesting date, who are then entitled to enter and take possession under Section 8 of the Act. Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
	Under Section 163 any person duly authorised by English Partnerships can at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any proposal to acquire that land or any other land, or any claim for compensation of any such acquisition. Evidence of authority of entry would have to be provided if so required and 28 days' notice on intended entry. Housing Act 1985
	Section 54 grants powers of entry to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey and examination where necessary in order to determine whether the Secretary of State should exercise any powers under Part II of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of the premises (Provision of housing accommodation).
	Section 197 gives power of entry to a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey and examination:
	where it appears to the authority that survey or examination is necessary in order to determine whether any powers under this part should be exercised in respect of the premises; or
	where a repair notice has been served in respect of the premises.
	Section 260 gives powers of entry to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey and examination where necessary in order to determine whether the Secretary of State should exercise any powers under Part VIII of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of the premises (housing action areas).
	Section 319 gives powers of entry to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey and examination where necessary in order to determine whether the Secretary of State should exercise any powers under Part IX of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of the premises (slum clearance).
	Section 600 gives powers of entry to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey and examination where necessary in order to determine whether the Secretary of State should exercise any powers under Part XVII of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of the premises (compulsory purchase). Local Government and Housing Act 1989
	Section 97 gives powers of entry of premises to a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of survey or examination where necessary in order to determine whether the Secretary of State should exercise any powers under Part VII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (renewal areas).

Powers of Entry

Lord Selsdon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what circumstances officials of the Department of Health and of public bodies answerable to the Secretary of State for Health can search and enter the homes or business premises of United Kingdom citizens; and, in each case, what is the statutory authority for that power.

Lord Warner: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given by my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office on 23 November 2005 at cols. WA 218–19.
	For the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency:
	The Medicines Act 1968 regulates medicines on the United Kingdom market and makes provision for its enforcement. Section 108 of the Act places a statutory duty on Health Ministers to enforce the provisions of the Act in England. This function is undertaken by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. The Act confers specified powers, detailed in Sections 111 and 112, which include rights of entry. Section 111(1), specifically, deals with right of entry and allows duly authorised officers to enter any premises, in connection with suspected breaches, at any time. Section 111(5) additionally provides the authority of forced entry under magistrates warrant.
	For the Healthcare Commission:
	In respect of independent and voluntary healthcare establishments, the Care Standards Act 2000, Sections 31 and 32, provide a right to enter premises for persons authorised to do so by the Healthcare Commission. The right extends to the right to ask for information, inspect and take copies of documents, and/or interview people in connection with their enquiries.
	In respect of the National Health Service sector, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, Sections 66 and 67, provide a right of entry by persons authorised by the Healthcare Commission to any premises owned or operated by an NHS body, and any other premises used for any purpose connected with the provision of healthcare by or for such a body. The right extends to inspecting or copying any records, removing items, and/or interviewing persons.
	For the Commission for Social Care Inspection:
	Under Section 31(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is given powers as the regulator of social care in England to enter and inspect premises:
	"(2) A person authorised by the registration authority may at any time enter and inspect premises which are used, or which he has reasonable cause to believe to be used, as an establishment or for the purposes of an agency."
	Therefore, CSCI may enter premises used in connection with registrable social care provision or which it reasonably believes is being so used which may be someone's home or business premises.
	As for the power to "search", by virtue of Section 32(1) of the Care Standards Act, CSCI is given powers of inspection which may or may not be regarded as akin to search in that it can, in specified circumstances, seize and remove material:
	"(1) A person authorised by virtue of Section 31 to enter and inspect any premises may seize and remove any document or other material or thing found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be evidence of a failure to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by or under this Part."

Powers of Entry

Lord Selsdon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In what circumstances officials of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and of public bodies answerable to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport can search and enter the homes or business premises of United Kingdom citizens; and, in each case, what is the statutory authority for that power.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the answer given to him on 23 November by my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal), (Official Report,23 November 2005; col. WA 218).
	The position in respect of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and those public bodies answerable to the Secretary of State is set out below. For completeness I have also provided further information on the Football Licensing Authority and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). DCMS
	Regulation 5(1) of the Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994/501)—which were made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972—provides that the Secretary of State may apply to a competent court for an order to authorise an officer of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to enter and search premises, where the court is satisfied: that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a cultural object has been unlawfully removed from the territory of a member state of the European Union and that the object in question is on the premises specified on the application to the court; and that admission to the premises has been refused, or that the case is one of urgency, or that an application for admission to the premises would defeat the object of the entry. English Heritage
	Sections 5, 6, 6A, 26, 40, 43 and 44 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, Section 36 of the National Heritage Act 1983 and Sections 88, 88A and 88B of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contain powers for DCMS officials or English Heritage officials to enter land in England. Such entry would be in connection with other provisions of the Acts; for example, for a proposal to list or de-list a historic building, to ensure a scheduled ancient monument or historic building is properly maintained, or to record any matters of archaeological or historic interest that the land may contain. Gambling Commission
	Under existing legislation, Section 43 of the Gaming Act 1968 allows the Gambling Commission to appoint inspectors who are given powers to inspect premises in order to find out whether there has been a contravention of the 1968 Act or any regulations made under it.
	Under Part 15 of the Gambling Act 2005 (to be enacted under secondary legislation), enforcement officers appointed by the Gambling Commission will have the power to enter and inspect premises in a variety of situations. These are mainly concerned with enabling enforcement officers to check whether facilities for gambling are being provided in accordance with the Act (including where they suspect the commission of an offence); or for enabling them to inspect premises where an application has been made for the premises to be used in providing facilities for gambling. In relation to a dwelling, the power of entry under Part 15 can only be exercised where it is authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (or a sheriff in Scotland). Royal Parks
	Under the 1872 Parks Regulation Act, as amended by the 1926 Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act, Royal Parks Constabulary (RPC) police officers have the same powers of search and entry inside the royal parks as a police constable would have outside the parks. Policing in the royal parks is now carried out by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), who carry out the role jointly with the RPC until a date to be designated under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (which will not be before 1 April 2006). After the designated day, all policing will be carried out by the MPS and no officials of DCMS will have any powers of search and entry and no officials will have any powers of entry and search. Further information:
	Under the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Football Licensing Authority (FLA) has power of entry to football grounds at which designated football matches are played and a power to inspect both the grounds and their safety certificates. However, their inspection powers should not be equated to powers to "search"; rather they can best be described as "entry and inspection" powers. The FLA has never had to enforce its inspection powers.
	In addition to the information above, although the BBC is not answerable to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport because it is independent of government, the Secretary of State has responsibility for the broadcasting provisions of the Communications Act 2003.
	Section 366 of the Communications Act 2003 contains a power of entry for a person or persons authorised by the BBC, for the purposes of enforcing the television licensing requirements. The power is exercisable only with a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (or a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland), who must be satisfied by information provided under oath that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting (i) that an offence of unlicensed installation or use of a television receiver has been or is being committed; (ii) that evidence related to such an offence is likely to be on premises or in any vehicle specified in the warrant; and (iii) that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) are satisfied. These conditions are: that it is impracticable to communicate with any person who may grant entry; that it is impracticable to communicate with any person who may grant access to the evidence; that entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced; or that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless carried out immediately on arrival at the premises or vehicle. A warrant is valid for one month after the day it is granted, and may grant powers to enter and search a specified set of premises or vehicle and to examine and test any television receiver found there. Persons acting under a warrant may use reasonable force in the exercise of these powers.

Questions for Written Answer: Reply Times

Lord Jopling: asked the Leader of the House:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Geoff Hoon, on 8 December (Official Report, Commons, 1471W) stating that Ministers have an obligation to Parliament to answer Written Questions within a working week of being tabled, whether this rule will be applied to Written Questions tabled in the House of Lords.

Baroness Amos: There are no plans to change the 14-day deadline for the answer of Written Questions in the House of Lords.

Rainsworth Secure Training Centre: Death of Gareth Myatt

Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Crown Prosecution Service will make a decision as to whether proceedings will be brought regarding the death of Gareth Myatt on 19 April 2004 at Rainsworth Secure Training Centre.

Lord Goldsmith: The Crown Prosecution Service has now advised Northamptonshire Police that there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution over the death of Gareth Myatt, 15, who was an inmate at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre, near Rugby.

Regional Development Agencies

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What guidance or directions have been issued by the Secretary of State under Section 8(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 on which other regional bodies to consult when developing shared priorities.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance to England's regional development agencies (RDAs) in relation to the preparation of the regional economic strategies which set out a shared vision for the development of each region's economy. The statutory guidance highlights the importance of partnership working; and while it will be for each RDA to consider how best to foster and maintain regional and national partnership and co-operation in public, private, voluntary and community sectors, developing an approach which best suits the needs and characteristics of the region, consultation should include working with the regional assembly and other regional and sub-regional partners and stakeholders. This guidance has not been issued under Section 8(3) of the RDA Act since that section states that the Secretary of State may give a regional development agency for which there is no regional chamber such guidance and directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing that it carries out appropriate consultation in relation to the exercise of its functions and all English regions do have regional chambers or assemblies.

Regional Development Agencies: Housing Provision

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many units of housing have been provided under the power vested in regional development agencies under Section 5(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

Baroness Andrews: The regional development agencies (RDA) have advised that since 1998 they have provided 20 units of housing under the power vested in RDA under Section 5(3) of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

Regional Services

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which services are now provided or partially provided on a regional basis that were not provided or partially provided on a regional basis prior to 1997.

Baroness Andrews: The information requested is not held centrally, and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Royal Air Force: Upper Rissington

Lord Marsh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will provide the Lord Marsh with the information promised on the future of the Royal Air Force base at Upper Rissington, following the hour-long meeting with the then Minister on 6 April.

Lord Bach: The information requested was sent by Defra officials to the Lord Marsh by e-mail on 3 June 2005. Any further questions in respect of the future of the Royal Air Force Base at Upper Rissington are matters for Ministers in the Ministry of Defence.

Secondary Schools: Post-16 Provision

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of secondary schools do not provide educational facilities to students above the age of 16 years and therefore do not offer A-level courses; and what target they have to reduce this percentage.

Lord Adonis: 58 per cent of maintained mainstream schools have 16-19 provision. DfES has a package of new measures to increase choice and diversity in 16-19 provision which includes: new fast-track arrangements for deciding sixth form proposals; a "presumption" in guidance that the Schools Organisation Committee will approve sixth form proposals from high performing specialist schools that opt for a vocation specialism; a new 16-19 capital fund from 2006–07 onwards administered by the Learning and Skills Council; competitions to decide a need for substantial new 16-19 provision that cannot be met under the "presumption" arrangements or by an academy. The department has no target to reduce the percentage of secondary schools that do not provide educational facilities to students above the age of 16 years.

Social Security Benefits: Children

Lord Skelmersdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the last year for which figures are available, how much was paid to parents in respect of their children for each social security benefit.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The available information is in the table.
	
		Great Britain, 2004–05, £ Millions, Estimated Outturn, -- Nominal Terms
		
			  ExpenditureDirected atChildren 
			 Retirement Pension—Basic 10 
			 Widow's/Bereavement Benefits—Basic 35 
			 Incapacity Benefit 37 
			 Carer's Allowance 32 
			 Severe Disablement Allowance 3 
			 Disability Living Allowance 841 
			 Vaccine Damage Payments 1 
			 Non-Contributory Christmas Bonus 3 
			 Social Fund 115 
			 Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee/   Pension Credit 3,264 
			 Jobseeker's Allowance—Income Based 160 
		
	
	Source: The information has been taken from the DWP Expenditure Tables.
	Notes:Expenditure figures are for Great Britain. Expenditure has been rounded to the nearest million pounds. Figures are estimates of the amount of benefit paid to claimants in respect of their children. Average amounts of child elements or increases, and numbers of claimants in receipt of these (both of which are obtainable from the Department's administrative benefit system data), are used to arrive at an estimate of the proportion of total benefit spending directed at children. The exact method of calculating this varies from benefit to benefit. Departmental expenditure directed at children does not necessarily equate to actual spending on children by benefit recipients. Additional spending on children through child benefit and child tax credit is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs.
	All figures are consistent with the 2005 Pre-Budget Report, and with expenditure information which is published on the department's Internet website at the following address: www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/expenditure.asp. The Internet tables have been updated recently following the 2005 Pre-Budget Report.

Somalia

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Triesman on 19 October (WA 133) and 10 November (WA 111–2), what is their estimate of the number of vessels hijacked in Somali waters since the beginning of 2005; and whether they remain of the view that the long-term solution to piracy in these waters is a return to peace and good governance in Somalia.

Lord Triesman: According to information received by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there have been 11 confirmed hijacks and 14 reported attacks on ships in Somali waters this year, as of 13 December.
	We indeed remain of the view that the long-term solution to piracy is a return to peace and good governance in Somalia.

Somalia

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make representations to the United Nations Security Council with a view to the council providing alternative transitional arrangements for the administration of government in Somalia, bearing in mind the prospects for reconciliation between the Jowhar and Mogadishu factions.

Lord Triesman: The Somalia National Reconciliation Conference led to the formation of the Transitional Federal Government and Parliament, whose members are currently having discussions to resolve their differences. We and other United Nations Security Council members have supported the establishment of the Transitional Federal Government, which we believe offers the best prospect of restoring effective governance to Somalia.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many residents they estimate will be affected by the possible construction of a second runway at Stansted Airport, including those affected by increased noise pollution; and
	How the existing noise footprint of Stansted Airport will alter with (a) the full use of the existing runway; and (b) the operation of a second runway running at maximum capacity;

Lord Davies of Oldham: BAA consulted on its plans for maximising the capacity of the existing runway earlier this year and on 9 December it published a consultation on their plans for a second runway. Both consultations provide information on a range of environmental impacts, including noise, and have been placed on BAA's website.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with (a) easyJet Limited and (b) Ryanair Limited regarding the mechanism by which the British Airports Authority will finance the construction of a second runway at Stansted Airport; and whether they will place details of any such discussions in the Library of the House.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government have not had any discussions with easyJet and Ryanair on the financing of a second runway at Stansted. This is a matter for BAA and the Civil Aviation Authority, as the airports regulator.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What impact the operation of a second runway at Stansted Airport will have upon traffic levels in and around the area; and
	Whether the existing rail capacity and infrastructure currently serving Stansted Airport are sufficient to meet the needs of a possible second runway at the airport; and
	Whether the construction of a second runway at Stansted Airport will affect any site of special scientific interest; and, if so, how; and
	Whether the construction of a second runway at Stansted Airport will affect any wildlife protected by law, and, if so, how.

Lord Davies of Oldham: BAA is responsible for taking forward plans for a second runway at Stansted. On 9 December it published a consultation on its plans which included information on a range of surface access and environmental impacts. The consultation closes on 24 March 2006 and has been placed on BAA's website.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had about the possible construction of a dedicated train line between London and Stansted Airport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government are working with BAA to identify the capacity requirements of the Stansted to Liverpool Street rail corridor to cater for the planned expansion at Stansted Airport. Various train lengthening and infrastructure options are being assessed as part of this work but it is too early to say what enhancements might be required.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their estimate of (a) how long it will take to build a second runway at Stansted Airport; and (b) by how much traffic levels in and around the area will increase as a consequence of the building works.

Lord Davies of Oldham: BAA is working to deliver a new runway at Stansted by the end of 2013. Its plans take account of estimated planning and construction time. The impact of the construction on the local area will be an issue for BAA to consider in its planning application for a new runway.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many tonnes of earth they estimate will need to be moved in order to construct the proposed second runway at Stansted Airport, as detailed by BAA on 9 December; and
	Whether any water courses will need to be altered in order to construct the proposed second runway at Stansted Airport, as detailed by BAA on 9 December; and
	What assessment they have made of the likely impact on the water table of the construction of the proposed second runway at Stansted Airport, as detailed by BAA on 9 December; and
	How levels of pollution will be affected by the possible construction and subsequent operation of a second runway at Stansted Airport, as described by BAA on 9 December; and
	How many litres of water they estimate will be used each year by the new terminal and service buildings under the proposals for a second runway at Stansted Airport, as detailed by BAA on 9 December; and
	How many additional tonnes of carbon dioxide will be generated (a) during the building of the proposed second runway at Stansted airport; and (b) its subsequent operation on a yearly basis, as detailed under the proposals published by BAA on 9 December.

Lord Davies of Oldham: BAA's consultation on 9 December provided information on a number of environmental impacts and it will need to present a full environmental impact assessment to accompany any planning application for a new runway.
	This will be considered by the land-use planning system in the normal way. The Government have not assessed the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of BAA's preferred option for a second runway at Stansted.

Stansted Airport

Lord Hanningfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the decision of the High Court to reject the application from Takeley Parish Council for judicial review of BAA's home owner support scheme, what steps they will now take to ensure an adequate compensation scheme is in place to address the consequences of the expansion of Stansted Airport as proposed in their White Paper The Future of Air Transport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Her Majesty's Government welcome the decision of the High Court. The non-statutory home owner support scheme offered by BAA is consistent with the Government's policy aims set out in our White Paper The Future of Air Transport. The BAA scheme does not affect home owners' statutory rights. Home owners, both directly and indirectly affected by airport development, will have access in due course to statutory blight provisions in the normal way.

Transport: Comparative Costs

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What investigations they have made into the comparative costs of constructing the infrastructure for (a) heavy rail-based public transport systems; (b) ultra light rail; and (c) guided busways; and what estimates they have of the comparative environmental, social and energy costs and benefits of operating these systems.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The cost of any scheme will vary significantly according to local circumstances and so direct comparison of this nature is difficult. No "ultra light rail" systems have been constructed and there is little evidence on which to estimate its likely costs.

Ulster-Scots Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 November (WA 54) concerning the funding of the Ulster-Scots Agency, which policies outlined in that agency's business case the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure considers new and therefore not appropriate for funding.

Lord Rooker: The only new policy outlined in the Ulster-Scots Agency's 2004 draft business plan referred to a community development initiative.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 75 from 2010, linked to the retail prices index, for the years 2010; 2015; 2020 and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below.
	
		Table: costs net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 75 from 2010, linked to the retail prices index, for the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030 -- Great Britain (£ billion, 2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2010 2015 2020 2030 
			 Net Cost 
			  1.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced at age 75 from 2010, and that the rate of basic state pension is uprated in line with prices growth (plus underpin) from year to year.
	The savings credit threshold is assumed to remain at its current level increasing in line with the basic state pension.
	Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefits (IRBs) such as pension credit and housing benefit, and potential increases in tax revenue, are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 75 from 2010, linked to earnings, for the years 2010; 2015; 2020 and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below.
	
		Table: costs net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 75 from 2010, linked to earnings, for the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030. -- Great Britain (£ billion, 2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2010 2015 2020 2030 
			 Net Cost 1.7 2.8 4.2 8.0 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced and the Basic State Pension (BSP) is uprated in line with earnings from 2010 onwards, at age 75.
	The savings credit threshold is assumed to be uprated by earnings in line with the BSP from 2010 onwards.
	Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefits (IRBs) such as pension credit and housing benefit, and potential increases in tax revenue, are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 70 from 2015, linked to the retail prices index, for the years 2015; 2020 and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below.
	
		Great Britain (£ billion,2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2015 2020 2030 
			 Net cost 2.9 2.8 2.2 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced at age 70 from 2015 and that the rate of basic state pension is uprated in line with prices growth (plus underpin) from year to year. The savings credit threshold is assumed to remain at its current level increasing in line with the BSP. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefit (IRBs) such as pension credit and housing benefit and potential increases in tax revenue are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 70 from 2015, linked to earnings, for the years 2015; 2020; and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below.
	
		Table: cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 70 from 2015, linked to earnings, for the years 2015, 2020 and 2030. -- Great Britain (£ billion, 2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2015 2020 2030 
			 Net cost 3.3 5.1 9.8 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced and the basic state pension (BSP) is uprated in line with earnings from 2015 onwards, at age 70.
	The savings credit threshold is assumed to be uprated by earnings, in line with the BSP from 2015 onwards.
	Gross costs are based on estimates by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefits (IRBs) such as pension credit and housing benefit, and potential increases in tax revenue, are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 65 from 2020, linked to the retail prices index, for the years 2020; and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below. Table: costs net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 65 from 2020, linked to the retail prices index, for the years 2020; and 2030.
	
		Great Britain (£ billion, 2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2020 2030 
			 Net cost 3.6 3.1 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced at age 65 from 2020 and that the rate of basic state pension is uprated in line with prices growth (plus underpin) from year to year.
	The Savings Credit Threshold is assumed to remain at its current level increasing in line with the BSP.
	Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefit (IRBs) such as Pension Credit and Housing Benefit, and potential increases in tax revenue, are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Universal Basic State Pension

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What would be the cost in net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 65 from 2020, linked to earnings, for the years 2020; and 2030.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The information is in the table below.
	
		Table: cost net of tax and benefits of paying a universal basic state pension at 65 from 2020, linked to earnings, -- for the years 2020; and 2030.Great Britain (£ billion, 2005–06 price terms)
		
			  2020 2030 
			 Net Cost 
			  4.3 10.5 
		
	
	It is assumed that a universal pension is introduced and the Basic State Pension (BSP) is uprated in line with earnings from 2020 onwards, at age 65.
	The savings credit threshold is assumed to be uprated by earnings, in line with the BSP from 2020 onwards.
	Gross costs are based on estimates by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with the Pre-Budget Report 2005 assumptions.
	Savings in income-related benefit (IRBs) such as pension credit and housing benefit, and potential increases in tax revenue, are estimated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2006 benefit rates. Savings are assumed to be a constant proportion of the estimated gross cost over time.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to reports that the European Commission Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment may be further delayed, when is it now due for implementation.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government announced on 15 December 2005 that it would be reviewing progress on the implementation of the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and undertaking a public consultation on its proposals for this during the spring of 2006 before transposing the main provisions of the directive into UK law.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which other European Union countries have implemented the European Commission Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Department of Trade and Industry published last month on its WEEE webpage (www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/Perchardsreport–November05.pdf) a summary by external consultants of other member states' progress towards implementing the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, including their various timetables for the introduction of its legal obligations.

Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the chief executive of Waterways Ireland has received any performance-based or related pay increase in each year since 2001; if so, when; and what were the criteria used to determine such awards.

Lord Rooker: The chief executive of Waterways Ireland has not received any performance-based or related pay increases.

Waterways Ireland

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the major conclusions of Deloitte and Touche's report about risk assessment on Waterways Ireland; when the report was produced; what action has been taken; and whether they will place a copy in the Library of the House.

Lord Rooker: The risk assessment process at Waterways Ireland is not expected to be completed until early 2006.

Youth Justice Board: Use of Restraint

Baroness Stern: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 5 December (WA 88), when the report provided by Mr Boatman and Mr Bleetman to the Youth Justice Board on restraint techniques will be published.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Youth Justice Board plans to publish the report. The timing is subject to advice from the Crown Prosecution Service and from the coroner presiding over the inquest into Gareth Myatt's death.